General Road and Highway Discussion

[MidTowner]

Good point on impounding! You can get a roadside suspension for stunt driving as well. Also a significant impact for anybody.

[danbrotherston]

/\ But they may have to take time off work to do so and many can ill afford the loss in pay.

Then don't get a ticket.... It is really quite simple.  Driving is a privilege, not a right.  If you cant adhere to the rules of the road, I really have no sympathy for you regardless of your social economic status.

You're missing the point.  I have no sympathy for people who drive dangerously either, but I do have sympathy for people who receive an effectively harsher punishment for the same offence simply because they are less wealthy.

Or if you prefer, I object to the concept that some people are wealthy enough not to have to worry about following the law.

[Rainrider22]

Good point on impounding! You can get a roadside suspension for stunt driving as well. Also a significant impact for anybody.

I don't agree with impounding and seizing of license and vehicles at the side of the road. This is punitive action before you have had an opportunity to have your case heard before a Judicial setting.  Police should never be the enforcer and adjudicator

[Elmira Guy]

@ Rainrider22

I agree. And if you've ever read my comments here, I am NOT an adherent to the "driving is a right" nonsense.

What I meant by my comment was that there are other costs to speeding than just the ticket and those costs can affect lower income people in particular, as was being discussed. I was not defending speeding, driving, or anything. I was replying to tomh009's comment above mine, hence the /\. Was meant to indicate an upward pointing arrow, so not sure where you got the idea I was suggesting that driving is a right.

[Elmira Guy]

That is exactly my thoughts as well danbrotherston. Others here seem to miss the point. Simply saying a fine is $250 impacts someone who makes $30,000 a hell of a lot more than it impacts someone who makes $100,000. A fine should not seek to, or even unintentionally punish those who earn less for the same infraction.

That was the point of my post as well. Some fail or choose not to see this as a problem.

[Rainrider22]

Then don't get a ticket.... It is really quite simple.  Driving is a privilege, not a right.  If you cant adhere to the rules of the road, I really have no sympathy for you regardless of your social economic status.

You're missing the point.  I have no sympathy for people who drive dangerously either, but I do have sympathy for people who receive an effectively harsher punishment for the same offence simply because they are less wealthy.

Or if you prefer, I object to the concept that some people are wealthy enough not to have to worry about following the law.

Someone who has worked hard and made thier wealth should not have to pay a higher fine. That is just absurd.  The law is the law. It doesn't distinguish between whether someone is wealthy or not very dangerous territory to advocate for that   by your definition  someone who is wealthy should have longer sentences in jail too

[Viewfromthe42]

There are different punishments. Some punishments are more like tolls or taxes, they impact people very differently, e.g. fine prices impacting incomes differently. Others are harsher and more equally impacting, when the crime is deemed to have been too great, such as murder jailing the rich and poor person equally. Or, in our case, the safety consequences of someone speeding so recklessly, e.g. the stunt driving law. Impounding recognizes that you are too dangerous to be allowed to continue, just as an officer arresting someone pointing a gun at people is too dangerous to ignore. Both have a right to a trial, but the punishment is correctly protecting public safety when it has become too imperiled to allow to continue.

[Elmira Guy]

@ Rainrider22 Time is NOT money in your scenario. Taking $1 from someone who only has $20 is far more punitive than taking that dollar from someone who has hundreds. Is that fair and equal in your mind?
And you assume that those who have more money work harder than those who don't? Really?

Are you also opposed to the wealthier paying more in income tax as well?

[SammyOES2]

As an aside, the whole "driving is a right" comments are ridiculous for many reasons - but most importantly because even if it was a right it wouldn't matter.  There are no rights that are absolute.  Every right we (as a society) give to an individual, we (as a society) also set the conditions where we remove that right.

Even something as fundamental as the right to life is sacrificed in certain conditions.

[Elmira Guy]

/\ Agreed

[tomh009]

Taking $1 from someone who only has $20 is far more punitive than taking that dollar from someone who has hundreds. Is that fair and equal in your mind?

Should parking tickets be variable price, too, then?

And should these be scaled to salary, taxable income or assets?

How much should foreign visitors (whose income or assets we don't know) pay?

Just some questions ...

[Elmira Guy]

/\ I actually never said I was for income based fines. My first post simply stated that paying the cost of a ticket may not be the only expense incurred by being charged and that appearing in court can cause a loss of income. Rainrider22 apparently took exception to my suggestion, and also assumed I was an advocate of the "driving is a right" camp. I'm not.
My comment was also in response to his assertion that the wealthy work harder. They don't.

Let's not pretend that money based punitive measures have the exact same impact on everyone across the income spectrum. Unless of course you feel that the wealthy should be punished less, which is exactly what the current approach does.

[Coke6pk]

I really doubt very much that the majority of those who object to photoradar have thought this deeply about it.

The impression I get from the comments is that they feel entitled to break the law, and unless caught in the act by an actual person, they shouldn't be punished for doing so.

As for the idea that you can purchase your way out of a ticket, this applies to officer issued speeding tickets as well, 3 demerit points on my license means nothing, so I can speed as long as I have points, and am willing to pay tickets and insurance.

The real solution is to have income based fines.

No, those who object photo radar hope there is less of a chance of getting caught by a real officer, and don't want to get caught. But their voices were loud enough to win a provincial election based on cancelling photo radar. Red lights snuck in there, but I don't know of any politician willing to risk the chance of getting booted based on that issue anytime soon.

As for buying your way out of a ticket, I stand by this statement. If I get a $150 ticket for speeding every day I travel into work this week by photo radar, I will owe $750. Lets say I have a good job and can afford that, I can keep doing it. If I get pulled over by a police officer every day, I will have the same $750 in fines, but will have accumulated 15 demerit points. At this point I will have my licence suspended. The ticket you get now is called a Part 1 Offence Notice, and has a maximum fine of $500. On day 3 or 4, the police officer will see the pattern, and likely issue a Part 3 Offence Notice (Summons to court) and the JP can issue fines up to $5000. [Back when I worked the smoking by-law, I had issued two Part 3's... one for a repeat offender, one for a subject who pretended they were deaf (I know sign language, so I knew they were faking) and walked out without identifying themselves.... in both cases JP issued a $5000 fine + court costs .... JP's hate when there is strong evidence for contempt of the system] This is very similar to Purolator/UPS who collect and pay parking tickets as the cost of doing business. If there was a demerit system, they would find other places to park.

Coke

[Coke6pk]

You're missing the point.  I have no sympathy for people who drive dangerously either, but I do have sympathy for people who receive an effectively harsher punishment for the same offence simply because they are less wealthy.

Or if you prefer, I object to the concept that some people are wealthy enough not to have to worry about following the law.

Someone who has worked hard and made thier wealth should not have to pay a higher fine. That is just absurd.  The law is the law. It doesn't distinguish between whether someone is wealthy or not very dangerous territory to advocate for that   by your definition  someone who is wealthy should have longer sentences in jail too

Maybe they should...

http://www.alternet.org/american-justice...ids-jailed

https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/t...d-the-poor

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...in-America

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/...he-wealthy


Coke

[danbrotherston]

You're missing the point.  I have no sympathy for people who drive dangerously either, but I do have sympathy for people who receive an effectively harsher punishment for the same offence simply because they are less wealthy.

Or if you prefer, I object to the concept that some people are wealthy enough not to have to worry about following the law.

Someone who has worked hard and made thier wealth should not have to pay a higher fine. That is just absurd.  The law is the law. It doesn't distinguish between whether someone is wealthy or not very dangerous territory to advocate for that   by your definition  someone who is wealthy should have longer sentences in jail too

Their wealth *DOES* make the punishment different, because the fine means less to them, because they have more money, because they're wealthy.

The law is the law, and it shouldn't discriminate against poor people, but that's what flat fines do. It isn't dangerous territory.

Wealthy people (by in large, in this country at least) should not live longer than poor people.  Therefore, the years of their life have the same value as the years of the life of any other person.

When it comes right down too it, the "punishment" that a fine represents is not a dollar value, it's lost work, lost wages.  Wealthy people are paid more per hour, thus a fine of the same value represents less lost work than it does for a lower income person.  You're actually the one arguing for sentences to be shorter for wealthy people.